En route to Seattle now, so we can talk about this later if need be.
The Online Publishers Association is opposed to 4c. Some of our members may decide to honor the DNT signal regardless of whether the UA is deemed compliant. If publishers want to go above and beyond the call of duty, then they should be able to do that. Also, in general, we have all already agreed that first parties are largely exempt from the restrictions. This would constitute a new burden for publishers to differentiate between compliant and non-compliant browsers.
On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:07 AM, "Peter Cranstone" <peter.cranstone@gmail.com<mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing your comments on the suggested changes to the following.
Part III Explicit and Separate User Choice
<Normative>
1. A User Agent must obtain explicit, informed consent to turn on the DNT header*
2. The User Agent must also make available via a link in explanatory text where DNT is enabled to provide more detailed information about DNT functionality
3. Any User Agent claiming compliance must have a functional implementation of the browser exceptions in this specification
4. Servers MAY MUST respond to users that their UA is â€œnon-compliantâ€